Let's talk about Israel

[Futuwwa]

What I do want to talk about is hatred towards Israel from a purely theological point of view.

I don't have any purely theological reason to oppose Israel's existence. If Israel recognizes the rights and legitimate grievances of the Palestinians and offers them a peace on equal terms (as in, terms that do not presuppose any superior Jewish right to the land), I will accept Israel and bear it no ill will.

Until then, fire and blood.

 

[M.I.A.]

is it true that palestinians willingly sold land to isrealis before there was ever an isreal? for a lot of money.

..if so you cant entirely blame the west and the jews for the state of the place today..

..today is a different day though, nothing of what happens today is any more than despair.


as for any other once muslim country being "retaken" i guess you have to ask what you have to offer them.

maybe a super great religion that the masses can get behind.

or a welcome influx of cash to boost there economies.

either way a change in strategy, approach, outlook and mentality is needed.. above all some sincerity in intent and action.. away from bloodlust.. its not the foundation of anything stable.

 

[Orangeduck]

is it true that palestinians willingly sold land to isrealis before there was ever an isreal? for a lot of money.

..if so you cant entirely blame the west and the jews for the state of the place today..

..today is a different day though, nothing of what happens today is any more than despair.


as for any other once muslim country being "retaken" i guess you have to ask what you have to offer them.

maybe a super great religion that the masses can get behind.

or a welcome influx of cash to boost there economies.

It would be correct to say that Jew bought *SOME* of the land in palestine. It would not be correct to say they bought all the land.

The fact is, the British Empire ruled the region. You can agree or disagree with this next statement, but the British could do whatever they wanted to the land. People might disagre, but back then, durring the age of Imperialism (even though the Age was about to end), that was the standard operating proceedure. An empire owned the land, and they did as they wanted with it.

The Biritish tried to set up a Jewish and Arab State. The Jews accepted the British partition...the Arabs rejected it...and here we are today (a Jewish state and no Arab state).

 

[TrueStranger]

And why are you talking about the Dome of the Rock? What does it has to do with the Qu'ran?[/COLOR]

I dont generally like wikipedia, but here is the quote from it "According to Islamic tradition, the rock is the spot from which Muhammad ascended to Heaven accompanied by the angel Gabriel. Further, Muhammad was taken here by Gabriel to pray with Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. After Muhammad's return, he called all who would believe him to join with him and be Muslim."

So as you can see, when I said DOTR, I actually meant it. I did not mean Al Aqsa. The DOTR is, according to later islamic tradition, was built to commemorate the night journey.


The Qu'ran says al-Masjidu l Aqsa referring to the Farthest Mosque. Omar built the structure of the mosque on the site to which the Qu'ran refers to as the "Farthest Mosque". The current structure of the Mosque was reconstructed over several times.

THe quran does refer to a furthest mosque, but that location, if you use logic, can't be Jerusalem. The quran does NOT say where the furthest mosque is located. Some english translations add "Jerusalem", but that is not in the arabic.

No, the current location of Al-Aqsa Mosque is wildly believed to be site which Mohammed (PBUH) ascended to Heaven. Since you quote wikipedia, I will quote it as well. Jerusalem was the first qibla, I don't have much hope in our flawed logic.

In Islam, the term "al-Aqsa Mosque" is not restricted to the mosque only, but to the entire Noble Sanctuary.[54] The mosque is believed to be the second house of prayer constructed after the Masjid al-Haram in Mecca.Post-Rashidun-era Islamic scholars traditionally identified the mosque as the site referred to in the sura (Qur'anic chapter) al-Isra ("the Night Journey").

The specific passage reads "Praise be to Him who made His servant journey in the night from the sacred sanctuary to the remotest sanctuary." Muslims identify the "sacred sanctuary" as the Masjid al-Haram and the "remotest sanctuary" as the al-Aqsa Mosque. This specific verse in the Qur'an cemented the significant religious importance of al-Aqsa in Islam. Initially, Rashidun and Umayyad-era scholars were in disagreement about the location of the "remotest sanctuary" with some arguing it was actually located near Mecca. Eventually scholarly consensus determined that its location was indeed in Jerusalem.[55]

So, you asked can a nation declair a city to be a capital if its occupied. The answer is "yes". As long as it fulfills both requirements, and in the case of Jerusalem, it does. That is why Barak Obama, who has a degree from Harvard Law, has said that Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel. Obama, like the guy or not, is not stupid. He knows international law, and a statement like that would piss off the UN if it weren't true.

Obama stated what almost every American president Democrat or Republican has uttered in the past. The American nation has it's embassy in Tel Aviv and not Jerusalem. The US does not recognize Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel.

In 2008, Obama addressed the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, saying that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” Controversy ensued, and the next day Obama — then a presidential hopeful — “clarified” his remarks, saying Jerusalem’s final status will have to be determined in peace negotiations.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel...-refusal-to-say-jerusalem-is-israels-capital/

It was just a month ago when Israel was crying about the fact that the US State department refuses to acknowledge Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel.

Israel has no intention of creating a diplomatic fuss about the US State Department’s refusal to consider Jerusalem the capital of Israel, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said Wednesday. Earlier that day, a State Department spokesperson resolutely rebuffed questions as to what Israel’s capital is, merely stating that the issue of Jerusalem has to be resolved through negotiations.

Department of State, June 28, 1967, in response to the Israeli decision to apply Israeli law to expanded East Jerusalem (de facto annexation): "The hasty administrative action taken today cannot be regarded as determining the future of the holy places or the status of Jerusalem in relation to them. The United States has never recognized such unilateral actions by any of the states in the area as governing the international status of Jerusalem..."

March 23, 1976, statement by U.S. Representative to the United Nations William Scranton: "I emphasize, as did Ambassador Goldberg, that as far as the United States is concerned such unilateral measures, including expropriation of land or other administrative action taken by the Government of Israel, cannot be considered other than interim and provisional and cannot affect the present international status nor prejudge the final and permanent status of Jerusalem. The U.S. position could not be clearer. Since 1967 we have restated here, in other fora, and to the Government of Israel that the future of Jerusalem will be determined only through the instruments and processes of negotiation, agreement, and accommodation. Unilateral attempts to predetermine that future have no standing..."

September 1, 1982, President Ronald Reagan: "...we remain convinced that Jerusalem must remain undivided, but its final status should be decided through negotiations."

March 5, 1990, Statement by Press Secretary Fitzwater on President Bush's Telephone Conversation with Seymour Reich of the Conference of Presidents of American Jewish Organizations: "...The President also reiterated that U.S. policy toward Jerusalem is unchanged. The United States supports a united Jerusalem whose final status is determined by negotiations."

http://peacenow.org/entries/us_non-...usalem_a_consistent_policy_pre-1948_-_present

The United States Congress passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act in 1995, stating that "Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel; and the United States Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999. As a result of the Embassy Act, official U.S. documents and web sites refer to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Since passage, the law has never been implemented, because of opposition from Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama, who view it as a Congressional infringement on the executive branch’s constitutional authority over foreign policy;[48] they have consistently claimed the presidential waiver on national security interests.

All Israeli actions in occupied Palestinian territory is void and null. Keep on crying, Jerusalem is merely the Capital of Israel in their little imaginary world. Now go bother someone else with your fallacious statements "Mr. Ex-Muslim". You're no longer entertaining.

 

[GuestFellow]

Hello everyone

I want to make something very clear...I do not want to talk about Arab-Israeli violence towards each other. I do not want to talk about who is blame for violence or "who started it". That conversation can go on indefinitely.

What I do want to talk about is hatred towards Israel from a purely theological point of view.

Something I was taught as a kid was, "any land that was conquered by Muslims, must always remain in muslim hands." I was never taught to hate Israel, but I was taught that Israel must be destroied because the land used to belong unde Islamic jurisdiction.

However, something I was never taught was that Spain must be returned to Muslim hands. I was never taught Greece, Austria or Hungary must return to Muslim hands.

Why is it that I hear of hatred towards Israel and how it must become Islamic again, but I need hear the same towards the other countries I mentioned?

Again, let's not turn this into a Arab-Israeli blame debate

Salaam,

Ah I'm personally do not go crazy over conquering land. I do believe people have the right to defend themselves, and war should only be considered as a last resort. I just want Israel to stop taking more land and want America to stop shoving it's gigantic backside into this conflict.

 

[Abz2000]

THe quran does refer to a furthest mosque, but that location, if you use logic, can't be Jerusalem. The quran does NOT say where the furthest mosque is located. Some english translations add "Jerusalem", but that is not in the arabic.

lololol stop talking rubbish mate,
did you just read a few verses or something and decided to spew that?
maybe ur unaware of all the descriptions of what happened on that night journey because u haven't bothered to learn about Islam, but have decided to come and dispute by means of vanities.

the Quran doesn't say it wasn't Jerusalem so ur refutation holds no substance,
and the hadith clearly state that the prophet pbuh came and told the pagans he had gone there and Abu Jahl had come to visit him and was quite happy,
"whats the news?"
"this night i have been to Jerusalem"
"JERUSALEM???"
"yes"
"if i gather the people together, will you tell them as you have told me?"
"yes"
so abu jahl the pagan went away soooo happy that he could now call him a lunatic, and he called the notables together, hear hear
then the Prophet pbuh described the journey, and when they asked him details he became a little flustered as he hadn't taken in so much detail, but then God opened up the vision of it as if it was in front of his eyes and he was able to describe it to the minutest detail, at which witnesses who had been there before were able to confirm.
and these are not just "made up Mozlem stories", most of those who opposed him at the beginning later accepted Islam, and stories like that wouldn't survive if they were lies, as some of the stories involved the previous enemies.

do some research, if you know not, ask of those who do.
and also ask ur bossom buddies what they say of Jesus (pbuh) and the sick things they say about Mary (ra).
and whether they believe these "heretics who follow an impostor" have a right to the holy land.

and finally, the zionist government is the antithesis of the rule of God on earth, even orthodox jews have realized that it's been put there by satanists for a totally different purpose than is claimed.
and also research isreal gay pride and prostitution law israel.
according to the bible, they don't belong there.

 

[Futuwwa]

It would be correct to say that Jew bought *SOME* of the land in palestine. It would not be correct to say they bought all the land.

The fact is, the British Empire ruled the region. You can agree or disagree with this next statement, but the British could do whatever they wanted to the land. People might disagre, but back then, durring the age of Imperialism (even though the Age was about to end), that was the standard operating proceedure. An empire owned the land, and they did as they wanted with it.

Actually no. Palestine was a mandate under the sovereignty of League of Nations. Britain was appointed custodian of it, to rule it subject to the Charter of the Mandate.

The Biritish tried to set up a Jewish and Arab State. The Jews accepted the British partition...the Arabs rejected it...and here we are today (a Jewish state and no Arab state).

Actually no, the British deferred the question of final status to the UN, which by then had succeeded the League. Britain abstained in the vote on the Partition Plan. A resolution apologists for Israel uphold as basis for its legitimacy, while ignoring all the obligations the same resolution imposes on Israel with regards to the non-Jewish population of the area.

 

[Futuwwa]

So, you asked can a nation declair a city to be a capital if its occupied. The answer is "yes". As long as it fulfills both requirements, and in the case of Jerusalem, it does. That is why Barak Obama, who has a degree from Harvard Law, has said that Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel. Obama, like the guy or not, is not stupid. He knows international law, and a statement like that would piss off the UN if it weren't true.

He made a statement of fact, not legality. A statement of fact analogous to "A bank robber who has not been caught is still in possession of the money".

Nope, my example works from a legeal standpoint. Nothing I said has been my opinion. In fact, I haven't given my opinion on the subject (and I probably wont since opinions are meaningless on a subject like this).

It is legally impossible to have your capital on land that is not your sovereign territory to begin with. That's international law, not opinion. That it's legal under Israel's domestic law is irrelevant. The capital is there, as a matter of fact. Facts don't make law, for if they did, everything would be legal.

 

[Orangeduck]

I cant post links for some reason. Go to you tube and type "Obama Jerusalem Undivided" (without the "") Here is Obama himself saying that Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel.

It was just a month ago when Israel was crying about the fact that the US State department refuses to acknowledge Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel.

Obama said publically that the city is the Capital of Israel. Unless you think that you tube video has been edited


The American nation has it's embassy in Tel Aviv and not Jerusalem. The US does not recognize Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel.

Obama does recognize Jerusalem..and the video proves it (not sure why I cant post a link). The location of an embassy has no beaing on a Capital. It never has and it never will. By that logic, New York is the Capital of America since most countries have an embassy there instead of Washington DC.

You are way out of your league if you want to argue law or history with me.

 

[Futuwwa]

He said that while he was a candidate for president (i.e. not president yet, not making an official statement in his capacity as president), and he said so to a political lobby group which very much wants to hear that from him. A politician telling a target audience what it wants to hear, say it isn't so! What's next, water is wet? mg:

 

[TrueStranger]

I cant post links for some reason. Go to you tube and type "Obama Jerusalem Undivided" (without the "") Here is Obama himself saying that Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel.

It was just a month ago when Israel was crying about the fact that the US State department refuses to acknowledge Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel.

Obama said publically that the city is the Capital of Israel. Unless you think that you tube video has been edited


The American nation has it's embassy in Tel Aviv and not Jerusalem. The US does not recognize Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel.

Obama does recognize Jerusalem..and the video proves it (not sure why I cant post a link). The location of an embassy has no beaing on a Capital. It never has and it never will. By that logic, New York is the Capital of America since most countries have an embassy there instead of Washington DC.

You are way out of your league if you want to argue law or history with me.

Stop making me laugh. Obama refuses to implement Jerusalem Embassy Act 1995, it has been more than a decade and three presidents in a row refused to implement it. D.C. and New York are legitimate cities of the United States of America. East Jerusalem, the West Bank, The Gaza Strip, and the Golan Heights are not Israeli territories. America does not have it's capital in Baghdad or Kabul. Your arrogance magnifies your ignorance. Forget about history and try gaining some knowledge about current events.

"In 2008, Obama addressed the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, saying that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” Controversy ensued, and the next day Obama — then a presidential hopeful — “clarified” his remarks, saying Jerusalem’s final status will have to be determined in peace negotiations.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-...raels-capital/

You don't have to post links, just click on the link which is already provided for you. You're really a horrible faker.

 

[Orangeduck]

the Quran doesn't say it wasn't Jerusalem so ur refutation holds no substance,

The quran also doesn't say it was the lost city of Atlantis, so I guess we can assume the quran was stating that is where the furthest mosque is. Dont you see the problem. Its a poor arguement to say "X doesn't say it"

and the hadith clearly state...

Yes, the hadiths, written 250 years after muhammad died, state where the mosque was. 250 years later!!!! That sends up a red flag when I read that. If you are going to accept the hadiths, then in order to not be a hypocrite, you must accept them all. You can not pick and choose which ones you want to accept. The hadith also records"

Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.524-
"Let none of you say 'I have acquired the whole of the Qur'an"

Read Bukhari V6 H509 and 510. It talks about the quran be written down, then RE-WRITTEN later and then manuscripts being destroied

Something I have noticed in the past couple years is that many islamic websites that used to have all of Bukhari's volumns, are not taking down vertian passages that they consider to be "problematic". Luckly for me, I have a digital copy of all his volumns.

Back to my point, if you accept the hadiths about Jerusalem, then you have to accept the hadiths about the quran be re-written and such.

 

[GuestFellow]

Salaam,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqU43-ekZ_U

^ The Obama Administration is not clear about this issue of Jerusalem.

 

[M.I.A.]

the Quran doesn't say it wasn't Jerusalem so ur refutation holds no substance,

The quran also doesn't say it was the lost city of Atlantis, so I guess we can assume the quran was stating that is where the furthest mosque is. Dont you see the problem. Its a poor arguement to say "X doesn't say it"

and the hadith clearly state...

Yes, the hadiths, written 250 years after muhammad died, state where the mosque was. 250 years later!!!! That sends up a red flag when I read that. If you are going to accept the hadiths, then in order to not be a hypocrite, you must accept them all. You can not pick and choose which ones you want to accept. The hadith also records"

Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p.524-
"Let none of you say 'I have acquired the whole of the Qur'an"

Read Bukhari V6 H509 and 510. It talks about the quran be written down, then RE-WRITTEN later and then manuscripts being destroied

Something I have noticed in the past couple years is that many islamic websites that used to have all of Bukhari's volumns, are not taking down vertian passages that they consider to be "problematic". Luckly for me, I have a digital copy of all his volumns.

Back to my point, if you accept the hadiths about Jerusalem, then you have to accept the hadiths about the quran be re-written and such.

with regards to hadith, if i can reconcile them with what i know then i guess i can accept them.
or if they are of sound moral or logical integrity then i can accept them.

it is an individual choice.. there is no compulsion in religion. maybe a want to better understand but i guess that is why we are here.

the quran says that nothing was with-held from the people.
the quran also says that the religion was perfected.

but gods knowledge is infinite.

i dont even know in context if the prophet pbuh was talking about himself or the hearers.

i guess with everything there is a middle path.. always be ready to be wrong..

everything has been debated and brought into question a million times before.. how on earth do you stop walking around in circles?

 

[Hulk]

If you are going to accept the hadiths, then in order to not be a hypocrite, you must accept them all.

No one with a decent level of knowledge of Islam would ever say that as they would know about the science of hadith.

It is apparent to me that what you are really after is fuel for your ego. You are googling your arguments as you go along. I might be wrong as I can't see people's intentions, but I can evaluate their outward actions and that is what I have observed.

The very fact that you mentioned "debate" shows how you think of yourself as someone "qualified".

 

[Orangeduck]

Salaam,

The Obama Administration is not clear about this issue of Jerusalem.

That is a good video and it gives a lot of details.

1) Obama did say that Jerusalem is the Capital of Israel and has said it more than once due to the fact that it fits all the requirements.
2) Obama has no authority to say a city can or can not be a capital since he is not in charge of any other country. He can make a factual statement, but he can not dictate laws outside of the US.
3) Therefore, while Obama stated the FACT that Jerusalem is the capital, he can not tell Israel what to do with the city from a legeal stand point and thus, the problem is between Israel and the palestinians. Obama can do nothing more than tell both parties to negotiate their problems.
4) The fact is, right now the city is the Capital of Israel (maybe not forever...but today it is). It's the seat of government and declaired by law
5) The palestinians want at least part of the city for their future state.
6) Obama can't give the city to Israel, nor can he deny it to the palestinians
7) Therefore, Obama's position is clear from a factual stand point, but legeally he has no say and must tell both parties to negotiate and compromise

 

[Scimitar]

I don't hate Israel, it is a name given to a land - that is all.

I don't hate Jews, the real Jews...

I hate zionist scumbags who claim to be Jews. Period. They can follow their racist ideology in the Talmud all they want, but Allah is the best accountant. And when HE accounts, it will leave no room for their sad and tired excuses. Their punishment will be total.

Scimi

 

[Insaanah]

Yes, the hadiths, written 250 years after muhammad died, state where the mosque was. 250 years later!!!! That sends up a red flag when I read that.

Unfortunately for you, the red flag is because of your own ignorance on the matter.

The ahadeeth actually began to be written down during the lifetime of the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).

‘Abdullaah ibn ‘Amr said: “I used to write everything which I heard from the Messenger of Allaah (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) with the intention of memorizing it. However, some of the Quraysh forbade me from doing so saying, ‘Do you write everything that you hear from him, while the Messenger of Allaah is a human being who speaks in anger and pleasure?’ So I stopped writing, and mentioned it to the Messenger of Allah (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). He pointed with his finger to his mouth and said: ‘Write! By Him in whose hand is my soul, only truth comes out from it.’
(Sunan Abu Dawud, vol. 3, p. 1035, no. 3639)

Abu Hurayrah said: When Makkah was conquered, the Prophet (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) stood up and gave a sermon [Abu Hurayrah then mentioned the sermon]. A man from Yemen, called Abu Shaah got up and said, “O Messenger of Allaah! Write it down for me.” The Messenger of Allaah (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) replied, “Write it for Abu Shaah.”
Al-Waleed asked Abu ‘Amr, “What are they writing?” He replied, “The sermon which he heard that day.”
(Sunan Abu Dawud, vol. 3, no. 3641 and 3642)

Read Bukhari V6 H509 and 510. It talks about the quran be written down, then RE-WRITTEN later and then manuscripts being destroied

Something I have noticed in the past couple years is that many islamic websites that used to have all of Bukhari's volumns, are not taking down vertian passages that they consider to be "problematic". Luckly for me, I have a digital copy of all his volumns.

Back to my point, if you accept the hadiths about Jerusalem, then you have to accept the hadiths about the quran be re-written and such.

Nobody considers those hadeeth you mentioned to be problematic, even though you personally might like to think so.

Links to translations of the hadeeth you mention are here: http://www.hadithcollection.com/sah...ri-volume-006-book-061-hadith-number-509.html

and here: http://www.hadithcollection.com/sah...ri-volume-006-book-061-hadith-number-510.html

I just re-wrote my post from the paper I had it on, onto Word. Does that mean I changed it? No. To re-write does not equate to change.

I notice you wrote in a post in the other thread that you used to fast the Islamic holidays.

I believed everything I was told by my parents, such as:

5) always fast durring islamic holidays

Why did you do that? Fasting on Islamic festivals (the two Eids) is forbidden - only satan fasts those days.

Peace.

 

[Orangeduck]

I don't hate Israel, it is a name given to a land - that is all.

I don't hate Jews, the real Jews...

I hate zionist scumbags who claim to be Jews. Period. They can follow their racist ideology in the Talmud all they want, but Allah is the best accountant. And when HE accounts, it will leave no room for their sad and tired excuses. Their punishment will be total.

Scimi

I have to say that I like you It's nice that we can disagree without reducing ourselves to hostilities.

There are some extremist zionists that are just plain terrible people.

Fortunately, the State of Israel is not connected to the ancient Kingdom of Israel. The modern State of Israel is secular and the extremists have virtually no say in government matters and decisions. The extremists zionists do seem to want a pure superior Jewish race. The government, thankfully, doesn't support them

 

[aadil77]

I have to say that I like you It's nice that we can disagree without reducing ourselves to hostilities.

Avoid posts like this and hopefully we can all bwe fwend's :statisfie

We can talk about Jerusalem if you want

Jerusalem was never the capital of any Islamic kingdom or empire. It was never a cultural center. Muhammad never saw the city. Islam, other than making a claim about the city's importance, really has no connection to the city.

The dome of the rock, the landmark usually associated with Muhammad's night journey, has nothing to do with Muhammad. Anyone who has ever seen the DOTR will notice that there is nothing to associate the building with the night journey (none of the inscriptions on the dome refer to the night journey...they are all anti-trinity quotes.)